Another key development in a battle that appears to be shifting in Bush's favor was the sharp public contrast between the Democrats -- who argued that all hope of saving Iraq is lost and we should begin pulling out now -- and those who say that leaving now would only embolden Al Qaeda, free them to expand their terrorist plots elsewhere, including here in the United States, and inevitably lead to a bloodbath for the Iraqi people.

Burns says it is "incontrovertible that the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal any time soon would be cataclysmic violence."

But in the closing hours of an all-night debate on their troop-withdrawal amendment, the Democrats were hardly thinking of what would happen to the Iraqis if we told Gen. David Petraeus and his high command to end the surge and prepare for a pullout of U.S. forces now.

Instead, the Democrats were calling on the Iraqis to begin negotiations with all parties in the country, presumably including Al Qaeda leaders, to reach some kind of "political settlement." That approach not only smacks of appeasement but it could lead to the kind of bloodbath that Burns and our military leaders in Iraq have warned would be the inevitable result if we just left.

It was the kind of cold-blooded appeasement that even the Washington Post -- whose military reporters have been unrelenting in their criticism of the war -- could not stomach.

"Before Congress begins managing rotation schedules and ordering withdrawal, it should at least give those generals the months they asked for to see whether their strategy can offer some new hope," the Post editorialized.

Last week's Senate vote bought Bush and Petraeus the additional time they need to make that hope a reality.